Got more questions? I may make another one I have to pay 268 dollars in student debt each month, but you can help me with Patreon (please): / highlyentropicmind: / highlyentropicmind
The way that I imagine self replicators working in the near future is compact "drones" which have a technological progression path stored in memory, with every material required being further processed externally by structures built by these drones, with a few branches of the progression to account for missing materials. As a result of this, they will build a fully functioning factory for many materials in the process of replication. I also believe that self replicators will mostly see use in space, due to their maximum potential being limited by land ownership on earth.
Congrats on your collab with Rhystic Studies, when I started the video I was like "Hm, Fer would be great here" and you show up. Perfect spotlight. I am always impressed by your level of knowledge in physics and linguistics, the two at first glance aren’t a match, but it’s nice to see. Cheers.
I really love your channel for this diverse content because i am interested in worldbuilding (hence the question) and i am a physicist :D And the hypothesis of the color charge is really interesting. Sadly i am not that good at qft because the course was very hard and not mandatory for my focus of study. But I plan to catch up on the basics eventually 😎👍 so share more of this stuff if you have anything I loved your advice for dealing with pressure and training ones resiliance. One needs to try and look back and reflect honestly. Than we see that we have grown and not "failed" in any way. The "rendering" is a good analogy that helps with my question. I guess I have the urge to build a unified model that describes any eventuality like in physics. But to think it from the endproduct maybe spares a lot of work, like you said, and can still be flexible.
Thanks for your attempt at replying my question, HEM. And thanks for pointing me to the Q&A video I would not have checked otherwise. However I still don't get it. Let's reformulate ( mean "pressure" or "force vector", "y" stands for photon/EM wave): e- < y > e- ... but... e- > y < e+ (or P+) These, which can be also drawn as Feynman diagrams (which are equations in disguise and the "Holy Book" of QM) are contradictory: the electron/positron can't "know" what the the photon "means" (should I feel repelled or attracted?)... unless it is somehow in different phase or otherwise carries the charge information. That's what I don't understand; the strong force analogy is not quite what I have in mind but it's still a partial insight. I imagine that maybe the photon has some sort of different phase, which results in different effects but nobody really deals on it, the best I got was an obscure book reference.
Here's the thing When two charges are near each other, and they make the EM vibrate, they make it vibrate in different ways depending on the sign of their charges If they are both the same charge the EM field will vibrate in such a way that the resulting waves will push the charges away. If they are the same charge it will vibrate in such a way that the waves attract them So you see, the photon doesn't need to know what charge created it nor to what charge it is going, the very fact that it was created already contains all the information about those things Maybe this helps, maybe it doesn't, but even if it doesn't, I hope you'll have trust in science, because at some point you have to trust that other people know more than you That's the reason I trust doctors, and pilots, and architects, and many other people. They are the experts on their fields, and I cannot become an expert on every field In the end, if I don't understand something, it doesn't mean that everyone else is wrong and humanity has been deceived for centuries, it just means I don't understand
@@HighlyEntropicMind - Then they must be different types of photon (or photonic/EM wave): one is creating a "mound" (repulsion) and the other a "hole" (attraction) and that is information and is, in a way, charge too. Anyhow, in principle the EM field is infinite and has no bounds, just as gravity, so it should not only apply to nearby charges but any pair of charges anywhere in in the observable universe (for the particles involved). However when QM deals with long distance photons, all they do is the photoelectric effect, why not raw electromagnetism?
@@LuisAldamiz I don't know what is your level of math, but I can recommend to you two books: Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by Griffiths, and Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell by A. Zee Also, you should check physics forums
@@HighlyEntropicMind - I'm not interested in math: as I told you elsewhere math is fine as logical-analytical tool but ultimately you need to explain things in terms available to all, else you're cheating at math-solitaire.
@@LuisAldamiz I disagree. Take the concepts of "hot" and "cold", can you explain them without invoking the concepts of "more" or "less"? Because those concepts are mathematics I think you should embrace math
you could argue that ontology is a subfield of linguistics; since virtually all categories are artificial, the only thing ontological constructions can be objectively said to describe are linguistic ones.
![[柴犬ASMR]曼玉Manyu&小白Bai 毛发护理Spa asmr](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0TsXQ7z2Dh4/mqdefault.jpg)
The way that I imagine self replicators working in the near future is compact "drones" which have a technological progression path stored in memory, with every material required being further processed externally by structures built by these drones, with a few branches of the progression to account for missing materials. As a result of this, they will build a fully functioning factory for many materials in the process of replication. I also believe that self replicators will mostly see use in space, due to their maximum potential being limited by land ownership on earth.
Congrats on your collab with Rhystic Studies, when I started the video I was like "Hm, Fer would be great here" and you show up. Perfect spotlight. I am always impressed by your level of knowledge in physics and linguistics, the two at first glance aren’t a match, but it’s nice to see. Cheers.
it's crazy to go around thinking: "I know the guy from Rhystic Studies, I could call him right now if I wanted to"
I really love your channel for this diverse content because i am interested in worldbuilding (hence the question) and i am a physicist :D
And the hypothesis of the color charge is really interesting. Sadly i am not that good at qft because the course was very hard and not mandatory for my focus of study. But I plan to catch up on the basics eventually 😎👍 so share more of this stuff if you have anything
I loved your advice for dealing with pressure and training ones resiliance. One needs to try and look back and reflect honestly. Than we see that we have grown and not "failed" in any way.
The "rendering" is a good analogy that helps with my question. I guess I have the urge to build a unified model that describes any eventuality like in physics. But to think it from the endproduct maybe spares a lot of work, like you said, and can still be flexible.
Thanks for your attempt at replying my question, HEM. And thanks for pointing me to the Q&A video I would not have checked otherwise. However I still don't get it. Let's reformulate ( mean "pressure" or "force vector", "y" stands for photon/EM wave):
e- < y > e-
... but...
e- > y < e+ (or P+)
These, which can be also drawn as Feynman diagrams (which are equations in disguise and the "Holy Book" of QM) are contradictory: the electron/positron can't "know" what the the photon "means" (should I feel repelled or attracted?)... unless it is somehow in different phase or otherwise carries the charge information.
That's what I don't understand; the strong force analogy is not quite what I have in mind but it's still a partial insight. I imagine that maybe the photon has some sort of different phase, which results in different effects but nobody really deals on it, the best I got was an obscure book reference.
Here's the thing
When two charges are near each other, and they make the EM vibrate, they make it vibrate in different ways depending on the sign of their charges
If they are both the same charge the EM field will vibrate in such a way that the resulting waves will push the charges away. If they are the same charge it will vibrate in such a way that the waves attract them
So you see, the photon doesn't need to know what charge created it nor to what charge it is going, the very fact that it was created already contains all the information about those things
Maybe this helps, maybe it doesn't, but even if it doesn't, I hope you'll have trust in science, because at some point you have to trust that other people know more than you
That's the reason I trust doctors, and pilots, and architects, and many other people. They are the experts on their fields, and I cannot become an expert on every field
In the end, if I don't understand something, it doesn't mean that everyone else is wrong and humanity has been deceived for centuries, it just means I don't understand
@@HighlyEntropicMind - Then they must be different types of photon (or photonic/EM wave): one is creating a "mound" (repulsion) and the other a "hole" (attraction) and that is information and is, in a way, charge too.
Anyhow, in principle the EM field is infinite and has no bounds, just as gravity, so it should not only apply to nearby charges but any pair of charges anywhere in in the observable universe (for the particles involved). However when QM deals with long distance photons, all they do is the photoelectric effect, why not raw electromagnetism?
@@LuisAldamiz I don't know what is your level of math, but I can recommend to you two books: Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by Griffiths, and Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell by A. Zee
Also, you should check physics forums
@@HighlyEntropicMind - I'm not interested in math: as I told you elsewhere math is fine as logical-analytical tool but ultimately you need to explain things in terms available to all, else you're cheating at math-solitaire.
@@LuisAldamiz I disagree. Take the concepts of "hot" and "cold", can you explain them without invoking the concepts of "more" or "less"? Because those concepts are mathematics
I think you should embrace math
you could argue that ontology is a subfield of linguistics; since virtually all categories are artificial, the only thing ontological constructions can be objectively said to describe are linguistic ones.